Community Discussions
Explore the latest discussions and community conversations related to this domain.
Seconds (1966) - the horror of sucking at life
Main Post:
I finally watched this movie, it was on my list for a while. I knew the premise and the main story going in. But the point didn’t end up being what I thought it was.
Here’s the plot summary: Arthur is an older guy in a boring marriage, working a boring job, just going through the motions and living in a state of total detachment from his life. He is contacted by an old friend who died a while back, who connects him to a secret agency that gives people second lives. Through plastic surgery and a lot of logistics (including finding a suitable cadaver to pose as his dead body), he will be proclaimed dead and placed in a different, more suitable life, free of all commitments.
He wakes up as Tony (Rock Hudson), and is placed in a nice beach house, he is now a certified artist with a pre-existing set of works to show for. He meets a perfect manic pixie dream woman who makes him loosen up at a party that looks like my idea of torture, but then gets too drunk at another party and starts going on about his past identity. At that point, some guys take him away and reveal they are all “seconds” too, and the manic pixie is just an employee meant to make his transition easier.
After this experience, he meets with his OG wife pretending he is Arthur’s friend who connected to him through his love for art, and asks her questions about himself. She tells him that Arthur was mostly silent, trying to find the words to say something he was never able to say. She said he did everything he thought he should do but didn’t find any enjoyment in it. She describes their marriage as a “celibate truce” (which matches his own description of it at the beginning) and says he died a long time ago.
This makes Arthur see that the reason why nothing works is because he always follows some imposed standards, and the only way things will work is if he starts a new life with the full freedom to do what he wants (although he still has no idea what he wants, or why he can’t do it as Tony.)
The agency plays along but when his time for surgery comes, he realizes he’s about to be killed off and used as a cadaver for someone else’s new life.
My main thought after watching the movie was that Arthur is a moron. Instead of seeing a flaw in the second life system, although we learn a lot of people fail at it, I see the glaring flaw in Arthur. The guy went from being an old fat guy to Rock Hudson. Even within the movie universe, that stretches the realm of possibilities, everyone agrees it’s the most successful surgery ever, and his reaction is to have one bad party and then instantly give up on that life and demand another try. I don’t know, I can’t blame the agency for not wanting to deal with him anymore.
On the other hand, this isn’t a flaw with the movie, it’s maybe the point. Is Arthur supposed to be a poor victim or a failure at life who can’t be helped even when everything is given to him? And the system still is flawed, not because there’s anything wrong with the concept but because of people like him.
So I don’t think the message is that of complacency like “like what you have because the grass isn’t greener/different life won’t make things better”, I think it’s much more realistically pessimistic - some people just suck at it.
Looking at Arthur's old life, I guess that’s fine for some people. His job as a banking executive bores him, but he is a successful guy who went to Harvard and stands to become a director. His wife actually isn’t shown as some cold basic bitch, she shows him warmth and affection at the beginning of the movie which doesn’t go anywhere because he doesn’t respond to it, and based on what she says at the end, she is perceptive and has some depth. She came across as a nice person.
On the other hand, I see how that kind of life would be boring. The problem is that many people, especially in the past, made decisions about their lives (e.g. marriage, family, career) before they knew what they wanted, and then they got stuck. Or maybe you can’t know if you want something until you know exactly how it will turn out, but people still have to decide and end up in lives they don’t like. But Arthur got a chance for a real change.
Now I don’t know if this is a flaw in the movie that left some parts unexplored or just another example of Arthur being an idiot, but his complaint that once again he is made to follow some plan imposed on him from the outside doesn’t make much sense. He was just beginning that life and wasn't really obliged to do anything at that point. It was in fact perfect for someone who doesn't really know what to do, to enjoy freedom from obligations and an opportunity to figure things out
He admits that he didn’t know what he wanted. I like this part, and I think it is relatable and interesting to see a protagonist who isn’t pursuing some clear goal but mostly struggles with the fact that he can’t identify what kind of life he wants in the first place. I get that, and that’s why the movie’s conclusion that he’s just hopeless is depressing but also very good in a dark way.
To me, the movie isn’t making a point about society, social pressures, or even broader human nature (like “even our biggest wishes become normal and unsatisfying once fulfilled” etc), it makes a point about Arthur, a person who just completely sucks at life. The thing is, Arthur never enjoyed being Tony, he didn’t even have the initial enthusiasm. He stayed detached.
Two things he did was try to have Nora (fake manic pixie) explain to him who he is, and then later his wife. And I think the answer was that he isn’t anything, or as his wife put it, that he’s already dead. That’s the horror element, not the death that ensues.
Would Arthur have made it if he got another surgery and full freedom? I doubt it. He doesn’t know what to do so what would that freedom amount to in practice? He wasn’t forced to do anything special as Tony, and that didn’t work for him.
I enjoy the lack of a moral message (at least in my interpretation) and the depressing conclusion of the movie. The movie suggests a lot of people are like that. Maybe that’s true. It’s hard to know what to do with your life, a lot of people pretend they do but just imitate some model that seems right or like it would win approval. Existential depression can make every course of action look meaningless. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would be very happy to have the life of Tony. Shit, reading reddit, I think a lot of people would be happy to have the life of Arthur. I’m just saying, humans are poorly adapted to life.
I feel for the old guy at the end, the founder of the corporation. He tried to do something amazing, just to have to deal with Arthurs of this world having no appreciation.
Having said all this, it’s not that I don’t get Arthur too. As the movie suggests, as much as he sucks at life he isn’t exactly an outlier.
To sum up, the movie answers the question of existential dread by demonstrating that the flaw within the system is you.
As for the overall story and viewing experience, while the idea is great and it has depth, the story’s a bit lacking. His timeline as Tony feels very rushed, there was more that could have been explored there. I also think the party scene wasn’t as effective. It served as a catalyst for everything to unravel, but since he had no connections to those people before, it just wasn't that relevant to see that those other guys were also seconds - it was pretty reasonable that this would be the case.
I’m still unsure if it’s a flaw or the point, but the fact that so little happens to him as Tony and he does absolutely nothing with it at any point is kind of frustrating. There’s a lot that’s great about this movie, but, like Arthur’s life, it feels underexplored and like there was a lot left unsaid. It could be a great candidate for a remake (as long as the spirit of the original is not altered), but maybe elaborating more would ruin it, and this feeling of incompleteness is right.
Top Comment: My main thought after watching the movie was that Arthur is a moron. You nailed it, didn't you? Arthur's failure to thrive isn't about the fucking system—it's about him. He’s handed a new, supposedly ideal life on a silver platter and fucks it up because he can't grasp his own desires or motivations. Isn't it telling how someone can be given every opportunity to succeed and still feel lost because they don't know what the fuck they want? I see the glaring flaw in Arthur. Exactly, Arthur is the flaw. The system’s just the mirror showing him his fucked-up reflection. He’s the embodiment of someone who thinks the grass is greener on the other side, but when he gets there, he realizes he's the fucking drought. His job as a banking executive bores him, but he is a successful guy who went to Harvard and stands to become a director. Here's where shit gets interesting. Success on paper doesn’t equate to fulfillment, does it? Maybe that's a reflection on how society pushes us to chase benchmarks of success that don't necessarily align with our personal happiness or fulfillment. The problem is that many people, especially in the past, made decisions about their lives (e.g. marriage, family, career) before they knew what they wanted, and then they got stuck. Isn't this the real fucking horror? Getting trapped in a life you chose when you didn’t even know yourself? Arthur gets a do-over and still can’t figure it out. What does that say about the rest of us? The movie isn’t making a point about society, social pressures, or even broader human nature... it makes a point about Arthur, a person who just completely sucks at life. Bingo. It’s not the external shit that’s terrifying here; it’s the internal emptiness. Arthur could be anyone, couldn’t he? That's the real kick in the nuts. Do you think if Arthur had been more introspective before jumping into another life, he might have figured out what he really wanted? Or was he doomed from the start because he couldn’t face himself honestly?
Seconds (1966)
Main Post:
Just watched John Frankenheimer's 1966 sci-fi thriller Seconds last night and really loved it.
I won't dive too much into the story, but essentially an unhappy middle aged man agrees to a procedure that fakes his death and gives him a new appearance and identity. The film explores ideas of identity, alienation, life and death, and love. It's a touching but depressing story.
I suppose the thing that struck me the most was how ahead of its time it is. For a 1966 B&W film, the use of plastic surgery is pretty cutting edge. The cinematography, by famed James Wong Howe, is incredibly done to create an uncomfortable and claustrophobic feeling. There are some great tracking shots and camera effects that are really impressive and effective.
Rock Hudson's performance could potentially be looked at as a weak point in certain areas, but overall the acting and writing is pretty well done.
The ending is quite shocking and, for the time period, I think really horrific. There is another bohemian/hippie scene in the middle of the film which is pretty progressive for 1966 and is shot in a way that makes it relentlessly uncomfortable but very visceral.
The biggest strength (and lasting effect) of the film is the theme of identity: If you could start over again completely new, would you? This dark thought latches onto the viewer, and begs you to question what it truly is in life that can make you happy.
I haven't seen a whole lot of discussion about Seconds, but I feel like it pushes the envelope and could be looked at as a very influential thriller. What are your thoughts?
Top Comment: I think you've done a good job capturing a lot of the things that makes Seconds a great movie. I would add that the commentary within the film is fascinating. We might think that starting completely anew with no connection to our previous lives may be an incredible gift. To simply do what one wants to do without any repercussions, well that is a deal a lot of people would take. But the thing is, Arthur hates his new life. He eventually desires trying a NEW identity because his current-new one is unsatisfactory. So at what point does this cycle of dissatisfaction end? If not for the ending - that is, if we were to see Arthur attempt many many different lifestyles and personas - I believe he would be equally as discontent as with his first. This drives home the central question of the movie (that you've identified yourself): what is it in life that can make you truly happy? The film seems to suggest that it is not by any external environment that we find happiness, which I find to be worth consideration.
Any love for John Frankenheimer and "Seconds" (1966)?
Main Post:
A little over an hour ago, I finally watched "Seconds". It has been on my radar for about two years, and I didn't really know what I was in for. At all. Light years ahead of anything that came out that year. Here's my review on letterboxd:
This is like the greatest episode of the Twilight Zone that never was. Rod Serling is jealous and I am shookith to my core. I'm still sitting here going "OH wait...that happened in the beginning because of...and that because...WOAH!!"
And to think that Frankenheimer, an American director who was a decade older than the movie brat film school generation, could have the talent and insight to make something like this in 1966, dropping this bad boy amongst typical studio fluff like "The Singing Nun" and "Lt. Robin Crusoe, U.S.N."
That ending is going to stick with me for lord knows how long.
The whole movie was pretty eerie, but the ending I think was what left me the most unnerving. Rock Hudson's screams juxtaposed with the Priest reading the bible, the wide angle lens creeping against the wall adding such a claustrophobic atmosphere and the slow realization that Rock Hudson was going to be killed. And then the realization that his FRIEND was killed. And then the realization that Hudson's going to be used as a body, and THEN the realization that the waiting room with all of the other guys is simply filled with bodies that they're going to inevitably use: woah.
Besides hearing everyone else's opinion on the movie, I'd also like to hear any recommendations for Frankenheimer's other movies. "Manchurian Candidate" is obviously a biggy, but he has other movies too that seem to have lots to take down.
Top Comment: I love Seconds and I recommend it to everyone. Here's my review: If Charlie Kauffman were writing movies in the 60's, he might write something like Seconds. While on the surface it seems like nothing more than a prolonged Twilight Zone episode, it has more depth of ideas, great acting, and filmmaking craftsmanship than a whole season of Twilight Zones. Rock Hudson is absolutely phenomenal from his first scene to this last. There's a depth and sadness and maturity in his eyes - the old man never leaves the body. The movie is just surreal enough to be sci-fi without ever getting too silly. Frankenheimer's commentary is far more enlightening than the one on Manchurian Candidate, although he still talks a lot about lenses and praises cinematographer James Wong Howe every 10 minutes. The 1960s was Frankenheimer's decade, and I'd almost place his work next to Kubrick's. He cut his teeth in television, including being the most prolific director on the highly regarded Playhouse 90 series, which saw many of its teledramas turned into famous feature films in the 60s. His foray into feature films started with Burt Lancaster in The Young Savages, a powerful indictment of poverty and troubled youth. They would make four films together in the 60s, the best being Birdman of Alcatraz in 1962. It's an intriguing true story prison drama and one of Lancaster's best acting roles (in a career of many great roles). Birdman was followed by Frankenheimer's best film, The Manchurian Candidate, which is also one of the best films of the 60s. It's a directing tour-de-force that plays on Cold War hysteria and paranoia and is incredibly relevant even today (even more than the respectable but lifeless 2004 remake). It's his must see film. He re-teamed with Lancaster for Seven Days in May, with a script by fellow Playhouse 90 writer and Twilight Zone-famed Rod Serling. This is another terrific political thriller that also remains highly relevant, although it's not nearly as bold as Manchurian Candidate. The Train is one of the great action movies of the 60s, with a tough Burt Lancaster stopping a train full of art stolen by the Nazis (with echoes of the great 1946 French resistance film Battle of the Rails). And then Frankenheimer made Seconds, which surprisingly wasn't written Rod Serling even though it feels like it. In some ways it's his best film, but it's a little too strange for the mainstream. After that he made Cinerama roadshow picture Grand Prix, which is only worth seeing for the incredible and ground breaking racing photography. Then his career seems to falter, although I need to see more of his films. From what I have seen: I Walk the Line is a good rural noir film with Gregory Peck (featuring the Johnny Cash song). The Iceman Cometh is a long but authentic staging of Eugene O'Neill's play with a great performance by Jason Robards - and kind of a return to Frankenheimer's TV style of directing. Good stuff. The French Connection II is an odd but worthwhile sequel. I haven't seen Black Sunday since I was a kid but I remember being freaked out by it. I'm reluctant to revisit it though. 52 Pick-Up was a forgettable 80s noir film. Ronin is the only "recent" film that he's known for, and I guess it's decent but I never cared that much for it. It's a long way from his heyday in the 1960s. Most people just like the car chase. It's alright. He also did the infamous Island of Dr. Moreau. No need to see that one. His last major film was Reindeer Games in 2000, but I haven't seen it. From time to time he returned to making TV movies, most notably the POW movie Andersonville - still recommended as one of the top Civil War movies. I've also seen George Wallace, a by-the-numbers but well-crafted biopic. So yes, I highly recommend seeing his other 60s films. Edit: I guess he made five films with Lancaster in the 60s if you include the Gypsy Moths. I need to see that one.
Seconds (1966)
Main Post:
Just watched John Frankenheimer's 1966 sci-fi thriller Seconds last night and really loved it.
I won't dive too much into the story, but essentially an unhappy middle aged man agrees to a procedure that fakes his death and gives him a new appearance and identity. The film explores ideas of identity, alienation, life and death, and love. It's a touching but depressing story.
I suppose the thing that struck me the most was how ahead of its time it is. For a 1966 B&W film, the use of plastic surgery is pretty cutting edge. The cinematography, by famed James Wong Howe, is incredibly done to create an uncomfortable and claustrophobic feeling. There are some great tracking shots and camera effects that are really impressive and effective.
Rock Hudson's performance could potentially be looked at as a weak point in certain areas, but overall the acting and writing is pretty well done.
The ending is quite shocking and, for the time period, I think really horrific. There is another bohemian/hippie scene in the middle of the film which is pretty progressive for 1966 and is shot in a way that makes it relentlessly uncomfortable but very visceral.
The biggest strength (and lasting effect) of the film is the theme of identity: If you could start over again completely new, would you? This dark thought latches onto the viewer, and begs you to question what it truly is in life that can make you happy.
I haven't seen a whole lot of discussion about Seconds, but I feel like it pushes the envelope and could be looked at as a very influential thriller. What are your thoughts?
Top Comment:
Great film, and its commentary on identity is to me elevated by the duplicity in Rock Hudson's own personal life, fascinating stuff.